HH is 2 flips. To have 2 HH you need 4 flips. That would be HHHH, which is 4 flips.
So, as usual, you have no intention of even trying to understand the things people are talking to you about. You want them to try to understand you, while having no intention yourself of trying to understand them. Do you think that’s a productive strategy?
I understand that what they are saying is nonsense.
If I flip HH and then I flip more and it ends up HH, then that is 2 HH which was 4 flips. What you are trying to say is that HH HH was 3 flips, HHH. It was not it was 4 flips that resulted in HH and HH.
You think it’s nonsense that in THHHT, there are 2 Hs followed by another H?
No, two H followed by another H is HH followed by 1 more H, which is HH H. That is not 2 HH that is 1 HH followed by H.
No as in no, what I said is not nonsense?
Two H’s followed by another H is like saying 2 cars followed by another car, right?
I don’t know why cars would help you understand.
You look at each H. You ask “is this H followed by another H?” You count the ones where the answer is “yes”.
In THHHT, there are two Hs for which the answer is yes.
THHHT is 5 flips. The question is how many H are followed by another H. As the H is selected it is counted and crossed off as available.
So you have THH is 1 H followed by another H
and what remains is HT which the H is followed by T, so that is not followed by H.
So you have 1 H followed by another H, and you have a separate H that is not followed by an H, which makes a total of 3 H.
How long does this need to keep going on before concluding that Motor is trolling?
Let’s put it to a vote:
- Motor Daddy is trolling
- Motor Daddy is not trolling
- Other/abstain
0
voters
You should ban me permanently if the results show I’m trolling. I don’t want to be a member of a forum where people vote I’m a troll, just because they like to throw rocks at people like the stone age.
“You should ban me permanantly if the results show I’m trolling”
Ok, your words.
1 Like
Cry more.
This is an admirable sentiment, but I wouldn’t do that and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Intent is hard to read online; take the result as feedback. If you aren’t trolling and the poll shows people think you are, consider why. On the other hand, if you are trolling and people think you aren’t, maybe you should be trolling harder.
I am requesting a permaban. I don’t want to be part of this forum any longer.
1 Like
Nope. Unless the coin is fixed.
The next flip is never moderated by the past.
You can argue either way on this issue with equal credibilty.
- The coin landed 100 times on heads, surely there is more chance of it finaly landing tails.
- If the coin has landed 100 times on head, it’s likely to do the same thing again.
Both are wrong, and the chance remains equal for either side…
This is true logically and experimentally. Plot an accumulative graph and the tendancy always trends to the centre.
Repeating millions of times in statistics classes.
Yeah I already get that. Each individual instance of a coin flip is an INDIVIDUAL instance not affected by whatever happened in the past.
But you are only looking at it from this perspective of the one single individual instance, whereas I am looking at it over the entire span of time and all instances. From that point of view, even though you cannot predict an individual flip with any greater accuracy than 50/50, it is still the case that flips occurring in statistically heavy regions of the entirety of all instances (heavy in either direction) are more likely to skew, over multiple instances, back toward the mean. So you can look at a swath of X flips and, because that X occurs within a larger Y which is heavily skewed toward heads than tails, know that it is more likely that X in total will average heavier toward tails.
And therefore within that region, you can know that any individual flip, still 50/50 in terms of its individual odds, is actually part of a larger statistic skewing in one direction more than another. That is quite simply and obviously because it is far less likely for you to flip a coin 1000 times and have them all be heads, compared to flipping a coin 1000 times and having some be heads and some be tails.
If all you know about this X region is that it occurs in a larger region that’s skewed towards heads, it’s more reasonable to assume X skews more towards heads than to assume it skews more towards tails.
No it is you that is giving one example.
It is I that is " looking at it over the entire span of time and all instances."
You might be convincing yourself here.